Disposed

P.P. Antony, v. District Collector

Kerala HC7 Oct 2020WP(C)/17397/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court resolved a writ petition disputing a cable TV service disruption. Respondents confirmed the connection and network were restored. The Court held that further grievances should be pursued against the operator by appropriate authorities, not via writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek appropriate relief from appropriate authorities for grievances against cable TV operator.

P.P. Antony, Vs District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.17397 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.17397 OF 2020(Y)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

P.P. ANTONY, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. LATE MR. P.V. PATHROSE, PLACKAL HOUSE, KEEZHUMADU, ERUMATHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683112.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.N.SAMEER SMT.K.G.MARY SMT.RASMI NAIR T.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE -682030.

¶13

2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3 POST MASTER, ERUMATHALA POST OFFICE, PIN-683112.

¶15

4 KEEZHUMADU GRAMA PACHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHMADU, PIN683112, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

5 MR. JOMY, S/O. MR. DEVASSY, AGED ABOUT 40, MANJOORAN HOUSE, PROPRIETOR OF ABEL VISION CABLE WORK, REGISTRATION NO.313/2009, CHUNANGAMVELY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683112.

¶17

BY GP,SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN,SC BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.17397 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 7^th day of October 2020

¶23

The petitioner's grievance relates to the cable TV Operator

¶24

and the problems relating to the connection as well as proper maintenance of the cable net work.

¶25

Learned Government Pleader on instructions from the 2^nd

¶26

respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent Grama Panchayat submitted that connection is already restored on 03.09.2020 and the line has also been restored.

¶27

Therefore, in case the petitioner has got any further grievance against the cable TV Operator he can seek appropriate relief from appropriate authorities; but not through this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

rkc

JUDGE

WP(C).No.17397 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE CO	PY OF THE	PHOTOGRAPHS.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE CO NAME OF	PY OF THE THE PETIT	SUBSCRIPTION CARD IN THE IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 A TRUE BEFORE	COPY OF THE 4TH RE	THE PETITION SUBMITTED SPONDENT DATED 08/08/2020.
EXHIBIT	P4 A TRUE 4TH RES	COPY OF T PONDENT DA	HE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE TED 12/08/2020.
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE BEFORE	COPY OF THE 1ST RE	THE PETITION SUBMITTED SPONDENT DATED 10/08/2020.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE BEFORE	COPY OF THE 2ND RE	THE PETITION SUBMITTED SPONDENT DATED 10/08/2020.
EXHIBIT	P7 A TRUE SUBMITT 12/08/2	COPY OF ED BEFORE 020.	THE INTERIM APPLICATION THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED

P.P. Antony, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P. Antony, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.T. Rocky Vs State of Kerala

Babu K.P. Vs P.G.Unnikrishnan

S.Suran Vs the Special Secretary

Shibu Thomas, Vs State of Kerala

Narayana Prabhu S. Vs Corporation Bank

R.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala